Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 146) to establish a battlefield acquisition grant program for the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has gone through quite a process. And although this bill contains several meritorious separate pieces of legislation, and three parts of this omnibus bill are mine, I might add, the negatives in this bill and the failure to consider it under regular order of any kind of open, inclusive process outweigh any reason, in my mind, to go forward.

By now, it is well known that Republicans have tried to amend this bill to restore needed House provisions, to remove egregious provisions, and add protections for Americans' second amendment rights.

If we had been allowed to offer these amendments, we might have produced legislation almost all Members of the House could support; however, we have been blocked at every opportunity from participating in this process.

This package is largely a product of closed-door deal-making. It is designed to ensure that just enough congressional districts receive something to induce support for very controversial measures that underwent no public hearing.

The Democrat leadership likes to argue that the full House has acted on more than 70 provisions in this bill. What they don't say is that at least 100 provisions have not been considered by the full House.

Mr. Speaker, this may look familiar to some people. It is a large, large bill. Of that, only this amount has been considered by the House. It seems like we haven't learned from what past experience has taught us about trying to put massive bills through the House without having somewhat of an open process.

Every motion, procedure, and action of this body has been used to deny the House Republicans any meaningful participation in this bill. The House's failure to study these 100 provisions will have serious consequences, in my view, for an ailing economy.

Before the House rejected this package under suspension of the rules, our friends on the other side of the aisle argued that this bill is just what America needs in difficult times. Well, it seems to me the discussion in this new Congress has been around the economy and the need for American jobs. And I think that we can all agree that Americans need jobs. Although H.R. 146 might create a few jobs, these jobs will be mostly limited to bureaucrats putting up ``Do Not Enter and No Access'' signs all over America's public lands. And these few jobs will be far outnumbered by the jobs that would be killed by this bill.

Are our memories so short that we have forgotten the energy crisis of just last summer and the role that it played in the economic downturn that we experienced in the second half of last year? Evidently, the Democrat leadership's answer to this is to close off energy-rich public lands forever.

This package contains 19 provisions to block American-made energy production, locking away hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. More than 3 million acres of public land are permanently locked away from energy development. Now, these are public lands, in a time when our economy is slowing, in a time when we need to try to get the economy going, and no sector could be better I think than the energy sector, especially the American energy sector; yet, this bill goes the opposite way of what I just cited.

It is ironic, while Democrat leaders accuse industry of stockpiling Federal oil and gas leases, the truth is that the Federal Government, through the actions of the Democrat majority in this Congress, is stockpiling lands to block energy production.

H.R. 146 has many other problems. It could--and I say ``could''-- result in a ban on the use of vehicles and other technology to patrol the U.S. border. It bans recreational access to millions of acres of public lands. Even worse, it denies those dependent on wheelchairs, including disabled veterans, from fully enjoying public lands like everyone else. It fails to address a Federal judge's decision of only last week, when we could have acted on this, that overturned the Bush administration's regulations to protect second amendment rights in parks and wildlife refuges. In other words, to make consistent our laws on public lands. H.R. 146 even hurts civil liberties. It could mean jail time and asset forfeiture for several innocent actions by Americans.

Yesterday, we received a letter from a coalition of civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and others, who have grave concerns. And I will quote, ``The bill creates many new Federal crimes using language that is so broad that the provisions could cover innocent human error.''

These organizations also say, and, again, I am quoting, ``Above all, we are concerned that a bill containing new Federal crimes, fines and imprisonment and forfeiture provisions may come to the House floor without first being marked up by the House Judiciary Committee.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill was not even marked up by the House Natural Resources Committee. This bill was not marked up by any committee in the House. This is a bill that came over, again, over 1,100 pages, from the Senate. So this wasn't even marked up, and it has these provisions in it.

I just have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, does this sound familiar? None of the several committees with jurisdiction over this bill had any hearing on the troubling provisions within this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is not how the people's House ought to work. This House is the House wherein no Member has ever served that was not elected. It

is the closest to the people. And when we have concerns, then let's debate those concerns, and let's have a vote. And I understand how that works. We have three buttons, but I generally only press two, yes and no; and, whoever has the most votes prevails. But we have been denied even that basic opportunity in the people's House on this bill.

The amendments I offered, for example, last night in the Rules Committee that were rejected, all on a party-line vote, I might add, were bills that only address the most egregious parts. We had a discussion with some of the members of the Rules Committee where they were talking about some of the provisions they worked on were carefully crafted. In fact, the distinguished chairman mentioned that. And I totally agree; I know there are provisions that have been crafted. But for those provisions in the bill that have some dissension, some difference of opinion, then let's discuss that, and then we can have a vote and whichever side prevails, prevails. That is the way the people's House ought to work. But, once again, that process is being denied with this huge bill that is slightly larger, I think, than the stimulus bill, if you want to make some sort of a comparison. But here we are again, today, going through that same procedure.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, while there are three provisions in this bill that I have worked several Congresses on, I have to say that this bill on the whole is not worthy of my support, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I yield myself 15 seconds to simply say that the NRA does not endorse this bill. The NRA endorsed the gentleman's amendment that he offered 2 weeks ago, but it does not endorse this bill.

National Rifle Association of America, Institute for

Legislation Action,

Fairfax, VA, March 10, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, H-232, The Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives, H-204, The

Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner, on behalf of the

National Rifle Association, I am writing to express our

support for the Altmire amendment to S. 22, the Omnibus

Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Altmire amendment

would ensure that the provisions of S. 22 will not be used to

close lands that are currently open to hunting, fishing,

trapping, target shooting and other forms of traditional

recreation. In addition, the amendment clarifies that the

states retain the authority to manage resident fish and

wildlife.

Encroaching development and the increasing population

demand for open space has resulted the closure of federal

lands that were once open to traditional forms of recreation,

such as hunting and target shooting. Whether it is the

closure of a trail that served as the access point for a

generations-old hunting camp or the closure of large areas to

target shooting, the sportsman's way of life has been under

attack. There are those who would exacerbate this situation

by attempting to use land designations to further close

federal lands to sportsmen. This is why the Altmire amendment

is necessary.

The Altmire amendment has already been applied to the

National Landscape Conservation System Act within S. 22. It

is critical to extend this protection for sportsmen to other

areas of the bill, specifically Titles V and VIII pertaining

to Rivers and Trails and National Heritage Areas,

respectively. This is precisely what the Altmire amendment

would do.

While the NRA takes no position on S. 22 as a whole, the

meaningful protections provided by the Altmire amendment are

critical to preserve access for sportsmen and the authority

of the states to manage resident wildlife populations. For

these reasons, we support its inclusion in S. 22.

Should you have any questions or need additional

information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at

(202) 651-2560.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox,

Executive Director NRA-ILA.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a new Member, and a new member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Broun.

Mr. Speaker, the last time I inquired about time there was a disparity. So I think I will reserve my time until we catch up.

Mr. Speaker, once again can I inquire of the time on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time again so we can equalize the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, again, to equalize the time, I will reserve my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore . The time is equal on both sides. There are 9\1/4\ minutes remaining for the gentleman from Washington, and there are 9\1/2\ minutes remaining for the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, a

member of the Natural Resources Committee (Mr. Bishop).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time. I am the last speaker on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks, I talked a bit about process, that we seem to have a pattern in this new Congress of taking up bills like this that are not fully vetted. This is just the latest example of that. I hope it is the last, but I am not holding my breath.

But I also made an observation in my opening remarks that there are enough individual bills in here to cover enough individual congressional districts that this bill will probably pass, and I suspect that it probably will.

I listened very intently to all of my friends on both sides of the aisle that spoke in favor of this bill. In every one of the projects they talked about, at least one way or the other, they suggested that there is a lot of work at home, there is a lot of vetting on that. And I totally agree.

When I went to the Rules Committee last night to try to address some of the problems I had, none of those projects that the Members on the other side talked about were what I was talking about with what I had problems with this bill. And that gets us then back to the point that we are making. On those areas where there is disagreement, in the people's House, Mr. Speaker, we should have an opportunity to discuss the differences and then have a vote and find out which side prevails. But all we heard today on debate on this was those that had good projects. I certainly don't argue with that. I mentioned I have three of them in here myself.

And so, the process, I guess, is what disturbs me more than anything else. The issue that I had a concern with was the issue of the judge's decision last week on second amendment rights. Nobody talked to defend that. The issue I had was the language that was taken out as to homeland security environmental concerns. Nobody came down to the floor to discuss that or defend that position. I raised concerns about the interpretation of people with disabilities having access to our wilderness areas. Nobody came down to the floor to discuss that.

Those are the issues that we should have had a discussion on, not the issues that everybody agreed upon. Had we gone through normal process, that probably would have been vetted. There probably would have been a compromise worked out so that we could have resolved the issues for everybody and a bill like this truly could have passed with well- overwhelming support.

But as it is, Mr. Speaker, because it is a bill in which a lot was vetted, in which there are a lot of unanswered questions and unintended consequences--which we see is becoming a pattern in this Congress by taking up bills that don't get a lot of time to be looked at--we will probably come back and have to make some changes. In fact, I would not be surprised that there will be a bill to address the issue of the judge's decision very shortly. I bet probably there will be a bill that will clarify the border security. Well, we could have done that with this lands bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, even though I have pieces of legislation in here, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, which incorporates the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

I want to thank Chairman Rahall for his leadership in bringing this legislation back to the House floor for a vote. While we were unable to vote on this package earlier this month, it is time that we pass these bills.

This legislation is a bipartisan package of more than 160 individual bills, and incorporates a wide range of public lands, water resources, and ocean and coastal protection measures that impact various regions of our Nation. All of the bills included in the package have been thoroughly reviewed and approved by the House or favorably reported by the Senate committee of jurisdiction during the 110th Congress.

Today, I wish to highlight four bills in the omnibus package that I sponsored during the 111th Congress.

First, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act.

This legislation codifies and strengthens an existing NOAA program-- the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, or CELCP--that awards grants to coastal states to protect environmentally sensitive lands.

As someone who represents over 200 miles of California's coastline, I'm well aware of the pressures of urbanization and pollution along our nation's coasts. These activities threaten to impair our watersheds, impact wildlife habitat and cause damage to the fragile coastal ecology.

Coastal land protection partnership programs, like CELCP, can help our Nation meet these growing challenges.

For example, in my congressional district I've worked collaboratively with environmental groups, willing sellers, and the State to conserve lands and waters around Morro Bay, on the Gaviota Coast, and near the Piedras Blancas Light Station.

These projects have offered numerous benefits to local communities by preserving water quality, natural areas for wildlife and birds, and outdoor recreation opportunities--thereby protecting for the future the very things we love about the coasts.

Although the program has been in existence for six years, it has yet to be formally authorized. This legislation seeks to do just that. It expands the federal/state partnership program explicitly for conservation of coastal lands.

Under this program, coastal states can compete for matching funds to acquire land or easements to protect coastal areas that have considerable conservation, recreation, ecological, historical or aesthetic values threatened by development or conversion.

It will not only improve the quality of coastal areas and the marine life they support, but also sustain surrounding communities and their way of life.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of former Congressman Jim Saxton. Mr. Saxton introduced this legislation in the 109th and 110th Congresses. His longstanding commitment to passage of this legislation will ensure the protection of the important coastal habitat and provide for increased recreational opportunities throughout his home state of New Jersey.

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act also includes my Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act.

This legislation seeks to establish a national ocean and coastal observing, monitoring, and forecasting system to gather real-time data on the marine environment, to refine and enhance predictive capabilities, and to provide other benefits, such as improved fisheries management and safer navigation.

To safeguard our coastal communities and nation, we must invest in the integration and enhancement of our coastal and ocean observing systems.

The devastation caused by tsunamis, hurricanes, and other coastal storms demonstrates the critical need for better observation and warning systems to provide timely detection, assessment and warnings to millions of people living in coastal regions around the world.

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the Pew Oceans Commission, and many government ocean advisory groups have called for the establishment of a national integrated coastal and ocean observing system as the answer to this challenge.

Specifically, the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observing System Act would formally authorize the President to develop and operate a genuine national coastal and ocean observing system to measure, track, explain, and predict events related to climate change, natural climate variability, and interactions between the oceans and atmosphere, including the Great Lakes; promote basic and applied science research; and institutionalize coordinated public outreach, education, and training.

Importantly, this system will build on recent advances in technology and data management to fully integrate and enhance the nation's existing regional observing assets, like the Southern and Central and Northern California Ocean Observing Systems, which operate off California's coastline. These systems have proven invaluable in understanding and managing our ocean and coastal resources.

I would also like to commend our former colleague from Maine, Congressman Tom Allen, for championing this legislation in the 110th Congress. Congressman Allen worked tirelessly to enact this important legislation in the last session, and he deserves a tremendous amount of credit when this measure is signed into law.

This legislation also includes my City of Oxnard Water Recycling and Desalination Act.

This bill authorizes a proposed regional water resources project--the Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment, or GREAT, Program-- located in my congressional district. Many communities today are faced with the difficult task of providing reliable and safe water to their customers. The City of Oxnard is no exception.

Oxnard is one of California's fastest growing cities and is facing an ever growing crisis: it's running out of affordable water.

The water needs for the city's agricultural and industrial base, together with its growing population, have exceeded its local water resources. As a result, over 50 percent of its water has to be imported from outside sources. However, through a series of local, state and federal restrictions the amount of imported water available to the city is shrinking, while the cost of that water is rising.

Recognizing these challenges, Oxnard developed the GREAT Program to address its long term water needs.

The GREAT Program elements include a new regional groundwater desalination facility to serve potable water customers in Oxnard and adjacent communities; a recycled water system to serve agricultural water users and provide added protection against seawater intrusion and saltwater contamination; and a wetlands restoration and enhancement component that efficiently reuses the brine discharges from both the groundwater desalination and recycled water treatment facilities.

Implementation of the GREAT Program will provide many significant regional benefits.

First, the new desalination project will serve ratepayers in Oxnard and adjacent communities, guaranteeing sufficient water supplies for the area.

Second, Oxnard's current water infrastructure delivers approximately 30 million gallons of treated wastewater per day to an ocean outfall. The GREAT Program will utilize the resource currently wasted to the ocean and treat it so that it can be reused by the agricultural water users in the area.

During the non-growing season, it will inject the resource into the ground to serve as a barrier against seawater intrusion and saltwater contamination. To alleviate severely depressed groundwater levels, this component also pumps groundwater into the aquifer to enhance groundwater recharge.

Finally, the brine produced as a by-product of the desalination and recycling plants will provide a year-round supply of nutrient-rich water to the existing wetlands at Ormond Beach.

I commend Oxnard for finding innovative and effective ways of extending water supplies in the West. In my view, the City of Oxnard Water Recycling and Desalination Act supports one such creative solution.

It will reduce the consumption of groundwater for agricultural and industrial purposes, cut imported water delivery requirements, and improve local reliability of high quality water deliveries.

Finally, the package includes my Goleta Water Distribution System Conveyance Act.

This bill authorizes the title transfer of a federally owned water distribution system in my congressional district from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Goleta Water District.

The purpose of the legislation is to simplify the operation and maintenance of the District's water distribution system and eliminate unnecessary paperwork and consultation between the District and the Bureau.

The Goleta Water District has operated and maintained the facilities proposed for transfer since the 1950s. They have worked through all requirements of the Bureau's title transfer process, including public meetings, fulfillment of their repayment obligations, completion of an environmental assessment, and compliance with all other applicable laws.

The only step remaining to complete the process is an act of Congress enabling the Secretary of the Interior to transfer title.

It is important to note that the proposed transfer would apply only to lands and facilities associated with the District and would not affect the District's existing water service contract with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, nor the Federal government receipts from water deliveries under the contract.

In addition, the proposed transfer does not envision any new physical modification or expansion of the service infrastructure.

I'm pleased the Bureau supported my legislation, which will allow the Bureau to focus its limited resources where they are needed most.

In my view, this is an example of local problem-solving at its best. I commend the staff of

the water district and the Bureau for their efforts to reach this agreement. I know that they have been working on this for several years now.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, all of these bills could not have been accomplished without the strong support and hard work and dedication of the House Leadership and Chairman Rahall, and I thank them for successfully moving these priorities in my congressional district.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 by voting for the Senate amendments to H.R. 146.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 280, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 146) to establish a battlefield acquisition grant program for the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the matter under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the road leading us here today has been a long one and it has contained a few twists and turns along the way. As my colleagues are well aware, a series of procedural hurdles in both the House and the Senate has delayed enactment of this legislation. It would truly be a shame, however, to allow those difficulties to overshadow just how important this bill is.

The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 is landmark legislation. It combines measures that will strengthen the National Park System, restore our national forests, preserve our Wild and Scenic Rivers, protect our sacred battlefields, and restore balance to the management of our public lands.

After nearly a decade during which our parks were taken for granted and our rangelands were scarred by a spider web of roads and well pads--after nearly a decade during which responsible stewardship was abandoned--this omnibus package represents a new dawn. A new dawn for America's heritage and America's values.

It will preserve pristine wilderness, such as in my home State of West Virginia, protect our national monuments and conservation areas, conserve our free-flowing rivers, establish new park units, guarantee abundant clean water for thousands of families, and more.

At a time when so much of the news is bad, when so much about our future seems uncertain, enactment of this public lands bill will serve as a reminder that our Nation is truly blessed; and that, no matter what happens, if we pass those blessings on to our children, our Nation will survive and endure.

One advantage of having considered this package before is that we have heard all the arguments. We have heard all the arguments against it, and we know that they have been proven wrong.

For example, we were told that this package costs a great deal of money. The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear; it does not. We were told that this is a big Federal land grab; but Members now understand that this package contains no condemnation nor taking of land of any kind. We were told this package contained a provision that would put children in jail for collecting fossils. We know now that only large commercial companies who take public resources and sell them for private profit will be penalized.

The truth is, this package of bills will make small but meaningful improvements in the quality of life for millions of Americans across our great country. The arguments made by opponents are petty by comparison. That is why an overwhelming and bipartisan majority of 77 members of the other body and 282 Members of this House have already voted for this bill.

We have all heard the saying: That which does not kill us makes us stronger. Attempts to kill this important package have failed, making our commitment to getting it enacted that much stronger.

The road leading us here has indeed had some twists and turns, but today we arrive at the end. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 146 and, finally, send this bill to the President for his signature.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) who has helped us craft some language in the bill that is supported by the National Rifle Association.

Mr. Speaker, I am forced to yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the total inaccuracies just stated by the gentleman.

First of all, the fossil collection measure in this bill applies only to public lands, no private lands whatsoever. And if the gentleman had heard my opening statement or even seen what the Senate passed, he would recognize--that the other body passed--he would recognize that the casual collector of fossils is exempt from this legislation. It only applies to those who are in the professional collection of fossils on public lands once again.

In regard to the locking away of land from oil and gas developments, what you are going to keep hearing throughout today from the other side is that old mantra ``drill, baby, drill'' that we are hearing over and over and again, and they just don't get it anymore.

I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, many Members on the minority side have been helping us with this legislation. I now am pleased to recognize one such Member, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), who has been very helpful to us as well on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield now to the gentleman from Arizona, the chairman of our Parks Subcommittee, who has undergone this tortuous path with us all the way, the gentleman from Arizona, the Park Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Grijalva, 3 minutes.

You forgot ``drill, baby, drill.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Washington for recognizing the scientific contributions made by Aquarius, and I thank them for supporting the provisions in the underlying legislation that will promote the development of future innovations in undersea research technologies.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his patience and willingness to work with us, and I pledge to work with him to move H.R. 1694 quickly and to work towards its passage in the other body in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished subcommittee chair on our Committee on Natural Resources, the Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield 1 minute to a new member of our committee who is from the State of New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished dean of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Michigan, my dear friend and an individual who has helped us tremendously in not only crafting this legislation but so much of the legislation that passes through the Congress, the Honorable John Dingell.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close on our side. I am our last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate, to some of the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle who are expressing opposition to this measure--some rather vociferously--I would quote William Shakespeare: Me thinks ye doth protest too much.

The Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail, which the gentleman from Washington--my ranking member who I respect--has been working on for many years will now become a reality. And the Park City and Bountiful land exchanges, which the gentleman from Utah has been advocating for some time, will also become a reality.

The Santa Margarita River and Elsinore Valley Water projects, which the gentleman from California wants, will now become a reality. And the Chisholm-Great Western Trail study, advanced by the gentlemen from Oklahoma, will now become a reality.

Many of you are in the enviable position, I guess, of protesting against this bill--perhaps voting against it--yet still getting what you want. I guess being in the minority sometimes has its advantages.

The fact of the matter is that the pending matter has twice been approved by the Senate by overwhelming majorities, and 2 weeks ago in this body, it received 282 votes in favor and 144 opposed.

It is now time, my colleagues, for the will of the Congress to be made final on this measure. We have heard repeatedly from the malcontents, but they do

not represent the majority view. The famous photographer Ansel Adams once said, ``Let us leave a splendid legacy for our children. Let us turn to them and say, this you inherit: guard it well, for it is far more precious than money, and once destroyed, nature's beauty cannot be repurchased at any price.''

That, my friends, is what this legislation is all about.

From the Wild Mon wilderness in my home State of West Virginia, to the Copper Salmon Wilderness in Oregon; the Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness in Virginia, to the Mount Hood Wilderness also in Oregon; from the Eastern Sierra Wilderness in California, to the Trail of Tears in Tennessee; the establishment of the Taunton Wild and Scenic River in Massachusetts, to the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail in Washington State, to the Paterson National Historic Park in New Jersey, my friends, this is America the beautiful, of spacious skies and purple mountain majesties.

This is what our great land is all about. This is what we, who have a responsibility to steward and guard our public resources, have a responsibility as well to pass on to generations to come after us.

My colleagues, in these trying economic times, let us today give assurances to the American people that this Nation does remain great and that we have something to celebrate, a heritage of which we can all be proud. The open skies, the public wilderness, the heritage areas, the wild and scenic trails, the beautiful, open-flowing and clean rivers, let us all think about those majesties that we have in this country as we move toward final passage of this legislation and indeed turn it to where it belongs, in the heavens above.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 280 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the

gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 280.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 280 provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Speaker, today, people across the country are looking to this body to pass this important bill. We have an historic opportunity to protect and preserve land across the country for future generations. Our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be able to enjoy national parks around the country.

In Maine, my district, like so many other areas around the country, we cherish the natural beauty that surrounds us, and we have worked hard to preserve it. When I was the Senate majority leader in the State of Maine, I sponsored the biggest land bond bill in State history to preserve our open spaces for the public.

Time and again, the people of my State have voted to invest in public land that will be protected for generations to come, and we value the full variety of uses of that land, whether it be hiking, camping, kayaking, hunting, or fishing.

We are here today to consider the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. These amendments provide us with the opportunity to strengthen our National Park System, improve forest health, facilitate better management of our public lands, and increase the quantity and quality of the water supply in numerous local communities.

This is not the first time this body has voted on this legislation. On March 11, a bipartisan majority of the House voted in favor of the Omnibus Lands Management Act. Unfortunately, it narrowly failed to obtain the two-thirds vote to pass the House. Last year, the majority of the bills that make up this package were passed out of the House but were held up in the Senate by a threatened filibuster.

Finally, this year the Senate voted twice--each time overwhelmingly in favor of this package. Our time to send this legislation to the President's desk is long overdue.

This package will provide protection to historic and cultural resources that include the sacred ground of American battlefields. In addition, it will protect our forests, our water, our network of trails. It will add to our National Park System and provide land that we can all enjoy.

By finally passing this legislation today, we will designate over 2 million acres of land as wilderness. This means that when our grandchildren want to take their families to see what America looked like in its wild state, they will be able to. And they will be able to explore these lands because we are not closing off or preventing access to land.

Instead, the wilderness designation helps manage the various uses, and this legislation recognizes that some areas are better suited for some kinds of recreation than others.

This act also provides protection to historic sites like the Harriet Beecher Stowe House in my State of Maine, where this courageous abolitionist wrote ``Uncle Tom's Cabin.'' Future generations will be able to see and use this site and others protected by this legislation.

This legislation before us is a product of bipartisan efforts that recognize how critical it is to conserve our land and ensure that the American people have access to that land. Land is one of our most precious resources and we must do our part, not only for our use but for future generations.

This legislation protects areas for outdoor recreation. It preserves land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities. Not only does this package protect some of the most environmentally significant and scenic land in the country, it also provides protection for our Nation's water resources and keeps our Wild and Scenic Rivers undammed and free flowing.

Taken as a whole, this package is truly landmark legislation. The amendments incorporate bipartisan bills introduced by the last Congress--39 by Democrats and 36 by Republican Members of the House.

Finally, as good a piece of legislation as I think this is, the debate before us is simply on the rule to debate the underlying bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may argue that this did not go through regular order, or this limits second amendment rights, or that it somehow excludes our honored returning vets from accessing public lands, but all of those arguments are simply untrue.

No, I won't.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this very important public lands bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Minnick).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

Yes. I am the last speaker for this side. I will reserve my time until the gentlewoman has closed for her side and yielded back her time.

Madam Speaker, let me be clear on two things. Nothing in this bill in any way limits or restricts access as defined by the ADA. Nothing in H.R. 146 changes the status quo in regards to regulation of hunting, fishing and recreational activities in designated areas.

I would like to enter into the Record a letter from the National Rifle Association supporting the Altmire amendment to the omnibus public land management bill.

I will also submit for the Record a full editorial in today's New York Times, and I would like to read briefly from that editorial.

``This bill establishes three new national park units and protects more than 1,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers and streams from development. But what makes it a memorial piece of legislation are provisions giving permanent wilderness status, the highest layer of protection the law can confer, to 2 million acres of public land in nine States ranging from California and Oregon to Virginia. This would be the largest addition to the nation's store of protected wilderness, now about 107 million acres, since 1994.

``The bill has broad bipartisan support in Congress and the country at large. But after surviving a threatened filibuster in the Senate in January, it failed by two votes in the House, partly for complex parliamentary reasons and partly because some House Members felt that not all the measure's moving parts (the bill is really 160 smaller bills wrapped into one big one) had been properly vetted in committee.

``This is a defect that afflicts many omnibus bills. It is also true, however, that every single provision in the bill is a product of long and intense negotiations stretching back years on the State and local level, and the product, that is, of consensus.

``The measure is now back in the House after a second trip through the Senate. It has been approved each step of the way. Its most controversial provision for a road through a wildlife refuge in Alaska has been revised for the better. It now gives the Secretary of the Interior the power to veto the road if he feels it would cause excessive environmental damage.''

The New York Times closes by saying, ``The House should honor all of this work, as well as the country's need for protected open space, by approving this worthy measure.''

This legislation has been through the House and the Senate numerous times in one form or another. The items in the bill have been thoroughly vetted. Most, if not all the House provisions have had extensive hearings, committee markups and been passed by the full House. The bill is a bipartisan product that contains language sought by Members on both sides of the aisle. That was reflected in the last week's suspension vote of 282-144 here in the House. The Senate vote was 77-20. Any changes at this point would require that the bill goes back to the Senate, where further action is very unlikely. It is time to pass this widely supported bipartisan legislation and send it to the White House for the President's signature. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

National Rifle Association of America, Institute for

Legislative Action,

Fairfax, VA, March 10, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. This legislation is the culmination of years of hard work, negotiation, and consensus-building, and I commend Chairman Rahall and his subcommittee chairs, including Raul Grijalva and Grace Napolitano, and the Natural Resources Committee staff, for all of their efforts to bring this bill before us today.

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act is a compilation of many of the most important conservation measures that the Congress has considered in years, and it is supported by a diverse coalition that includes the outdoor industry, sportsmen's associations, parks and wilderness advocates, faith groups, and literally dozens of individual conservation and wildlife protection organizations from across the country.

In California, for example, this bill will protect significant stretches of federal land for future generations by enacting the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act, the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act, and the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act.

But this bill is not just about protecting national treasures for future generations. It's also about taking very significant steps to resolve water conflicts. All of us who represent California and the arid West are very concerned about drought, and this bill provides solutions: the legislation before us today resolves conflicts that have dragged on for decades, and it will bring substantial clean water supplies online. We owe it to our constituents to support this bill.

Some previous speakers have erroneously claimed that the Omnibus Public Land Management Act would harm our water supplies.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that this bill increases the clean water supply available to the American West, and it settles years of costly litigation over water. California, for example, will see seven Title XVI water recycling projects authorized by this package, in addition to two groundwater recharge projects. These projects will allow local communities across our state to produce almost half a million acre-feet of reclaimed reuse water and added storage capacity. These water provisions are environmentally sustainable and they are cost-effective, and should be supported by our state's entire congressional delegation.

Because of the widespread benefits of these Title XVI and groundwater water supply authorizations, this bill is supported by a broad coalition that includes the Association of California Water Agencies, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the National Water Resources Association, and the Western Urban Water Coalition. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter of support sent by this coalition earlier this month to Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner. These agencies and associations are supporting the Omnibus Public Land Management Act because they know that this bill represents a historic chance to meet our water challenges head-on. I strongly support continued investment in these and other alternative water supplies, and encourage the Bureau of Reclamation to move expeditiously on these projects.

The bill before us today also provides us with the remarkable opportunity to resolve nearly two decades of litigation over the restoration of the San Joaquin River in California. The San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act is supported by the local affected water districts and the Friant Water Users Authority, the environmental and fishing group plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, and by the state and federal government. By approving H.R. 146, we are voting to restore water and salmon to the once-mighty San Joaquin River, as well as to authorize programs to help local farmers avoid potential negative impacts from the restoration program.

Without this legislation, the parties to the lawsuit would have no choice but to return to court, meaning wasted time and energy, a lack of certainty for both sides, and the loss of significant nonfederal funding. By passing this legislation today, we provide the funding and legal authority the Department of the Interior needs to ensure a timely and robust restoration program, which is so essential to the success of this settlement.

As many of my colleagues know, the continued shutdown of the sport and commercial salmon fisheries in our state has resulted in significant economic losses. While California must do more to restore the health of the Bay-Delta and the Sacramento River, restoring 30,000 spring run Chinook salmon to the San Joaquin River each year, as this legislation intends, will help ensure that California's salmon, and the considerable statewide economic activity that depends on healthy salmon runs, are restored and sustained for future generations.

Approving the San Joaquin River Settlement will help bring the State's second largest river back to life, improving water quality for the Bay-Delta, and it will achieve some of the goals of the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Perhaps most importantly, Congress's approval of this settlement will demonstrate that environmentalists and farmers can work together with federal and state agencies to resolve California's water challenges in a way that all parties can live with. While passage of this legislation is not the final step in the restoration of the river, and although we will need to watch the agencies' implementation of the settlement carefully, this vote today is a critical step in a very long process.

For those of us who represent California and the West, it's very clear that this bill offers a significant opportunity to protect our natural resources, address serious economic problems, and resolve conflicts over water. We can't afford to miss this chance.

For all these reasons and more, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 146--the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

March 10, 2009.

Re S. 22 Omnibus Public Lands Act.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

House of Representatives, Capitol Building, Washington, DC

Hon. John A. Boehner,

House of Representtives, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Representative Boehner: The

undersigned organizations urge your support for key

provisions of S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act

of 2009 and ask that you oppose any parliamentary or

procedural efforts to delay or disrupt S. 22.

This legislation includes many key water provisions and

authorizations for critically important water projects and

water resource management programs that would help increase

local water supplies. The bill could not come at a more

important time as California and the southwest grapple with a

multi-year drought--one of the most severe we have

experienced in the last hundred years.

Additionally, S. 22 authorizes the terms of two historic

environmental settlement agreements, the Lower Colorado River

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and the San

Joaquin River Restoration settlement agreement. The Secure

Water Act, as detailed in S. 2156, is also included in the

Omnibus Public Land Management Act.

Your support of S. 22 is imperative and we ask that you

move expeditiously to help ensure that the key water

provisions of S. 22 including the San Joaquin River

Restoration Settlement Agreement, the Lower Colorado River

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan can be enacted as

soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration of our

request which would greatly benefit all Californians.

Very truly yours,

Tim Quinn Executive Director, Association of California

Water Agencies; Donald R. Kendall, General Manager,

Calleguas Municipal Water District. Art Aguilar,

General Manager, Central Basin Municipal, Water

District; Tony Pack, General Manager, Eastern Municipal

Water District; Ronald E. Young, General Manager,

Elsinore Valley Municpal Water District; Richard

Atwater, General Manager, Inland Empire Utilities

Agency; John R. Mundy, General Manager, Las Virgenes

Municipal Water District; Jeffrey Kightlinger, General

Manager, Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California.

Tom Donnelly, Executive Director, National Water

Resources Association; Michael R. Markus, General

Manager, Orange County Water District; Matt Stone,

General Manager, Rancho California Water District;

Leroy Goodson, General Manager, Texas Water

Conservation Association; G. Wade Miller, Executive

Director, Watereuse Association; Richard Nagal, General

Manager, West Basin Municipal Water District; Charles

L. Nylander, President, Wester Coalition of Arid

States; Guy Martin, National Counsel, Western Urban

Water Coalition.